The Conservative leadership election.

As I expected there was Boris and the rest. I voted for Boris as I agreed with his clear statements that we have to leave by October 31st, and that failure to quit would be deeply damaging to our democracy and to the Conservative party. Next week will be about deciding who should go forward to challenge Boris, who commanded enough votes in the first round to secure one of the last two places, assuming all his voters stick with him which is likely.

It is difficult to see Rory Stewart, Matt Hancock or Sajid Javid staying in contention. Dom Raab’s votes are likely to drift away to Boris as the Get out candidate who can win. I expect Jeremy Hunt will extend his lead over Michael Gove and stay in second place. Michael Gove is trying to sell himself as another Leave candidate, but he was one of the most insistent advocates of the Withdrawal Treaty which was the opposite of leaving, and now says if necessary we should delay our exit beyond October 31. None of the candidates who rule out No deal Brexit have explained why the EU should negotiate a revised Withdrawal treaty, nor how they could negotiate anything without the leverage of just going if necessary.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

211 Comments

I am not unhappy that Boris is likely to be in the final two, but disappointed to see Esther McVey go so early. I suspect she was never really in with a chance. Hope that Michael Gove is not the other candidate – just don’t trust him.

Whoever eventually becomes PM, they will need to do more with the BBC than just address the licence fee as you raised yesterday – I have just read an article dated 13th June entitled “What is a ‘no-deal Brexit’?” on the BBC website.

It is the most disgustingly one-sided summary I think I have ever read – highlighting all the (vaguely) possible negatives, lightly dismissing counter-claims and ignoring, totally, the many positives. It is abhorrent that this, supposedly impartial, ‘Establishment’ run service is allowed, no – encouraged, to blatantly peddle such Remainer views.

@Pominoz; McVey was toxic, unelectable due to her support for the failed UC project, you might not understand the stress and fear that UC has caused but many an existing and even more would-be Tory voters have, even if just the suffering of friends and neighbours.

As for the BBC, when will you get it, the problem is not just the BBC, both Ch4 and Sky News are far worse, even LBC have problems…

@Anonymous; Yet you are happy to allow your hard earned money pay for Ch4 and Sky News, and even those without a TV, those who have chosen not to pay the TVL fee, pay the checkout ‘tax’. I would have more sympathy for your ideals if you did not simply target the BBC but engaged in a rational debate about media bias.

Jerry, That’s because media bias is not the issue. I don’t care that the BBC is biased, or Sky, or Breitbart. All media is biased, ineluctably. What I care about is that I cannot legally watch Sky – despite paying their fees – without also being forced to pay for the BBC as well.

If media bias is not the issue then you are surely making the case for CND, that people should be allowed to pick-n-mix what taxes they pay, you do not want to pay the ‘BBC tax’ and they do not want to pay the ‘MOD tax’…

“I cannot legally watch Sky – despite paying their fees”

I choose to keep a motor car on the public roads, doing so REQUIRES me to pay all due taxes and fees as set out by law, this is regardless of what roads I choose to use, or even id I use none at all; you choose to watch receive broadcast TV, doing so REQUIRES you to pay all due taxes and fees as set out by law, it matters not one jot what programmes you choose to watch. QED.

I have had no reason to drive in either Scotland or Wales for about 20 years now, yet I still have to fund their roads via my VED and other taxes or fees. Your logic would suggest I should get a reduced VED for only choosing to drive in England, whilst the little old lady who drives only on Wednesdays and Sundays, does no more than 250 miles pa and then only on B and C category roads should perhaps not have to pay VED at all.

Also what do you not understand, people need to eat and run their homes, they can not do that without paying the ‘TV checkout tax’ (even if they choose not to own a TV…) yet I never hear you call for commercial TV to be curbed in their funding model, or subscription channels of additional income, the way you do the BBC if CHOICE was really the issue at hand.

I accept the BBC has major issues (and have said so here), but so does both Commercial and Subscription TV, I want the problems sorted out so that there is a level playing field for all, you just want to tilt the field even further … Yours (and other’s) is a political argument, I have no doubt that should you succeed in destroying the BBC your next target will the the biased Ch4, divide and then rule, but control of the media is required first.

Jerry, No, I don’t. Danone does, Nestle does, or Unilever, etc. I don’t control them, so what they do with their money is up to them. I merely buy their products. Just as my employer may pay me, but not control what I spend the money on. You stop showing your ignorance!!

@NickC, You really do not have a first clue how adversing works and were the funds come from to pay for it. So let me get this right, what you are saying is, companies do not make their profits from sales? When talking about consumer grade goods and services, as we are, most profits come via the checkouts, be that from a bricks and mortar shop selling the product or an on-line outlet direct or third party.

You would need to be living the “Good Life” as a hermit, halfway up a mountain, not to pay any for advertising via the checkouts.

Your logic also appears to be suggesting your employer pays you to do nothing, create nothing, earn them not one penny, perhaps you are correct, considering you appear to seem to spend all your time volunteering your social media skills [sic] to UKIP/TBP…

But then perhaps you a hermit, halfway up a mountain, working for UKIP/TBP central office – it would explain a lot!

Jerry, The point is that any employer pays his employee in exchange for work (do I have to spell that out to you?). But cannot specify how the employee spends that money – see the Truck acts.

Equally when I buy a product I have no hand in how the seller chooses to spend the proceeds. Or responsibility for it. Otherwise you would maintain that I am responsible for a businesses tax fraud too. Your absurdities would never end. And since I don’t watch TV, I am not even influenced by TV advertising.

Again you miss the point. The truth is that the BBC is biased – because all humans are. The real issue is there is no reason why I should fund your biases just because you like the BBC.

The BBC is in our control, as we are taxed to use it. We can through Parliament return it to it’s Rethien principals while selling off it’s News and Current Affairs department,pour encoureger les autres. I want to hear the Guardianistas who run the BBC squealing.

Taking nothing from McVey, she would find it difficult in answering some of the flowery-language Remainer ex-barristers and other legal eagles who only have obfuscating nonsense to justify them being employable in any face-to-face work with normal people. You can’t argue with such as they who choose to speak in a dead Italian’s upper class lingo. How’s the Italian economy and politics doing since the last Caesar by the way?

UC, and thus McVey, is toxic to many who voted Leave and why they voted Leave, jobs here in the UK for UK passport holders – or at least that is what all the UKIP/TBP fans keep telling us, and they often do so on this very site…

In my circumstances I would take home £36K for performing a local full time minimum wage role without the daily three hour commute and associated costs required to earn a similar amount plus not having to deal with the daily grind of middle management issues to earn that money.

@NS; Out of touch, as usual NC, with the realities (not the political spin, from either side) of those who have to claim UC, people who still have to pay their rent, never mind eat, still have to fund their job search activities, whilst waiting for the their claim to be processed and the first payments to be made, those who have undeniable disabilities or illness but still have to be assessed, not simply submit a doctors letter etc. I really don’t believe you understand the differences between how a JSA claim worked and the new UC works.

I’ve had to actually dip in my own pockets to help friends unable to work (for long or short periods of time) due to no fault of their own, you on the other hand appear to think it a taxpayer funded holiday for such people. 🙁

In-work benefits have always been available to those eligible and willing to claim, just like pension credits etc.

LBC is like Question Time: it does have independent alternatives on but they are outnumbered. O’Brien, La Fogarty, and Mair are on all day every day till 6pm with only Nick Ferrari to balance first thing; Frei, Nawaz and Bull outnumber Andrew Castle. Nick Abbot and Darren? are on all night. Farage gets an hour four days a week, and two hours on Sundays; Jacob gets one hour once a week. The news summaries are infected with left wing remainiac bias and so is the “political expert”, Theo Usherwood. In fact he once made an extraordinary and outrageous attack on a guest, behaving as if he were a socialist worker or member of antifa. He should have been sacked but he wasn’t. We didn’t even get an apology or an explanation. Instead, LBC presenters went on to add to the attack by misreporting and misrepresenting the incident.

@matthu; Equal bias in the same programme, from the same presenter. Some my never have opportunity to hear the alternate biased programme if broadcast say when they are at work or asleep. Are you really saying that if the BBC gave an open mic to UKIP at 3am for an hour everything would be fine, no complaints?

Not sure. Perhaps IDS, McVey and the department can take blame for technical failures and the overconfidence in the ability of civil service to rollout at speed, but surely, after the poor transitioning, the fundamental problems are due to Osborne’s cuts.

@Caterpillar; It’s the basic system that is wrong, not the funding, and if there is not enough funding then that too is the responsibility of the DWP, they agreed funding with HMT prior to staring the roll out of UC.

IDS might well have miscalculated, even made an error of judgement, but he did so before the effect of the errors were known and could be assessed; McVey on the other hand carried on supporting UC roll-out despite 20/20 hindsight, often only making changes after she or underling having been dragged to the despatch box for a UQ or what ever, that is why she has become toxic but IDS not.

When it comes to climate nonsense they are all as bad as each other, but then so are the candidates for PM on the same subject.

There is a very expensive highway to nowhere for this country, as politicians vie with each other as to who can be the most “ambitious” on destroying our energy network and our remaining industry by raising electricity costs higher and higher, causing even more hardship for the poor.

Yes two subjects, climate change and the environment that are lumped together erroniously and quite deliberately to cause confusion.

The environment is man made. Stopping the slaughter of tigers rhinos and elephants for body parts, dumping the sea with our rubbish, and stopping our postmen dropping rubber bands on my drive are all laudable aims. The health benefits of a clean atmosphere would reduce the burdon on our NHS. The effect that all might have on climate I would suggest is negligable.

The Sun is the driver of climate, always has been from the begining of time, delude yourslves in thinking you can compete with it. What you can do is mitigate it’s effect. Politicians don’t like the thought of this. There is not much glamour in building sea walls and it costs money. They prefer dramatic anouncements, not backed by technology, that wantonly destroys the car industry. The latest by the departing May aims to increase the pace of destruction knowing she won’t be arround to take responsibility or pick up the pieces. The sting in the tail of her failed legacy.

all that preoccupation and economic damage in the misguided belief our 1% will change everything by 2050. Total waste of time doing anything apart from trying to get China to act sensibly re-global warming, India to reduce birthrate, USA to reduce consumption per head, and S.America to stop deforestation.
Getting Emma Thompson to stop her flights might help(not!)

I agree the BBC is getting out of control. One of the problems with EU funding is the prerequisite that you cannot make negative comments about it, or the funding ceases. Therefore this makes it impossible for the BBC to be an impartial reporter. The BBC is contravening its own covenant, not once but twice!

Given the way the bulk of the politicians are behaving over the democratic result of the referendum, it explains a great deal why Parliament has done nothing.

If Johnson is elected, I sincerely hope he stops the BBC in its tracks. It would go down very well with the masses.

Best to get a deal of course but: quick trade deal with the US, join TPP, control tariff schedules and regs, save £12bn net pa. most of all, restore confidence when it becomes apparent project fear 2.0 is exaggerated. It will be another 364 economists moment.

Excellent to see the absurdity of your reply. to describe chlorine washed chicken as frankenstein food is clearly silly. most salad sold in supermarkets here is chlorine washed. millions of americans eat these famous chickens & 5m UK visitors to the US each year escape unscathed. Food poisoning from chickens in the US is lower than it is in the EU. If you dont want to eat it dont. but the EU’s bogus safety block on it is protectionism.

Yes I’d like US companies be able to compete with french german and UK ones – in those minority of cases where the govt does outsource NHS services. And I’d also like profit making US companies to carry on selling equipment and drugs to the NHS – or should those also now be blocked in favour of ‘safer’ ones from the EU?

Why not let them in, you don’t have to buy/eat? have you even the remotest idea of the poor control we have over far flung so called tracking of meats, eggs, prep of salads, veg, fruit within the EU. Like someone said years ago, if you saw the inside of a pie factory you’d never eat another one.

Andy, The ownership of the NHS is not “on the table” in a trade deal, and never was. All the USA trade delegation is asking for is fairness to “Ensure that SOEs accord non-discriminatory treatment with respect to the purchase and sale of goods and services” (USA-UK Trade Negotiating Objectives).

As for chickens, I doubt that the USA would allow UK chickens to be sold in the USA since they don’t meet the USA’s stringent SPS requirements. The obvious solution is for neither side to accept the other’s chickens.

I would say that avoiding any need to get permission from your anti-British friends in Brussels is a great positive, and Theresa May should have struck out on that course long ago rather than continuing to supplicate.

“So we should now say that rather than kowtow to the stupid destructive intransigence of the EU we will fall back on WTO trade rules and only seek agreements on the practical or technical aspects of continuing trade.”

And she should have explained to the wider world why she was taking that line and made sure that any blame was laid where it belonged.

I will just say something about the last paragraph in that comment:

“That would do us some economic harm, although nowhere near as much as portrayed by the Remoaners, and it would do the other countries more economic harm, albeit it would be spread around among them, but on most projections the country which would suffer by far the greatest economic damage would in fact be Ireland.”

And according to a subsequent study by the German ifo institute the harm to the Irish economy could be at around 8% of GDP, much greater than the harm to the UK economy. Which is why it would cut little ice in Dublin to offer to reimburse the minor costs of changing their systems:

Much much better, Andy, if YOU would entertain US by explaining all the great and wonderful things that would come our way should we remain shackled (as you wish).

I asked yesterday if you’d spend just a little time trying to win hearts and minds – tell us what it is you admire about the EU and why we should want to be a part of an ‘organisation’ like this, with so many failings. Failings that YOU, obviously, can’t see. Or do you only view it from a personal perspective? ”I’m all right, Jack”.

“Tell us what it is you admire about the EU and why we should want to be a part of an ‘organisation’ like this, with so many failings”
==

Happy to oblige and I hope the gentleman won’t mind me repeating the following:

Sir

To his list of a half-dozen “rickety” EU member states Iain Martin (comment Feb 2) could add another.

It’s currency has crashed to its lowest level for 30 years, it has the lowest productivity, the lowest provision of hospital beds, highest cocaine use, shoplifting and class division in Europe, racism and hate crime are on the increase and its second constituent nation is threatening secession. It is the UK.

But the whole is greater than the simple sum of its parts.

The EU became the world’s biggest economic entity, with peace, prosperity and standards of justice maintained where they never endured before, whatever the condition of its members.

Before we ascribe failure to the synergy of great and complex economies we should beware the pot calling the kettle black.

We have the lowest unemployment, the fastest GDP growth in Europe , racism has not increased ( official figures) hate crime is hurt words on social media.

Hospital beds…. er this is YOUR NHS you know the one you are terrified will be changed, your NHS now provides less beds than before it was nationalised in 1948 hmmmm

Its Scotland that has the highest drug deaths in Europe

Estonia had the highest rate of drug-related deaths, per million people aged 15 to 64, in the EU

Research by the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) found that in 2016 Estonia was the country with the highest rate of drug-induced mortality in the EU—with 132 deaths per million 15 to 64 year olds. The UK came in joint-third out of the 28 countries, alongside Ireland, with 70 deaths per million.

I do not have a say in this fight, and should I have it would not have gone to, Alexander Johnson MP.

I accept our kind hosts reasons but I have has enough of charlatans and carpet baggers this past 3 years and more. Please don’t let him build that silly bridge across the English Channel, or give amnesty to illegal immigrants, please ?

Yes, I worry about some of his polices. He proposes giving an amnesty to illegal immigrants without any idea about how many there are, how many relatives will arrive under the right to a family life and how much it will all cost. It sends out a bad message in that if you break the law you will be rewarded but if you follow the law you might get penalised. I’m also concerned about this dictatorial approach to Government policy. I thought a party put together a manifesto and the public voted on whether to elect them. When did this change to candidates promising anything they fancy?

Christine, I wonder how many illegal immigrants we return at the moment each year? How much does it cost us whilst they are making their claim in housing and benefits, whilst they’re not allowed to work to earn their own keep?
How much does it cost us in legal aid costs for each of them?
Perhaps we need to stop this merry-go-round.
How long do asylum seekers stay in the UK whilst being processed?
Has anyone asked Boris why he wants to grant an amnesty? Does that mean these people would all then flood the job market and have to pay for their own housing being released from housing benefit and hostels?

You could apply this to all criminals. Why bother arresting them and locking them up as it costs more money than leaving them on the streets? Without law and order, society breaks down. If you don’t enforce the rules then more people will break them.

I would guess it was when he was Mayor of London, and London is full of illegal immigrants. He probably thought they would never be deported, so why not regularise them and get the tax. Spain has done this about seven times I think. It is a crazy idea and the worst thing about Boris – apart from his sister which he can’t help.

Raab needs to be in charge of this – Home Secretary?

I would like to press Boris on N Ireland too: when we come out on Hallowe’en, it must be in one piece, all together. Selmayr must not get his way. Gove has already said he wants to let the EU annex NI and we must make sure nothing untoward happens with Boris.

In the year ending June 2017, the number of people placed in immigration detention in the UK was 27,819.2 Of these, 23,651 were men, 4,120 were women and 48 were children. With few exceptions, there is no statutory time limit on their detention, meaning that they have no idea when they will leave. For most of them, this indefinite detention ultimately lasts at most a few weeks, but some are held for many months and even years.3 Most detainees are ultimately released back into the community.4
Amnesty.org

I also want out by October 31st, but at the back of my head there is this feeling that the likes of grieve Letwin cooper Benn Bercow and all the other remoaners are planning there next move to try and stop Brexit by some means or other

The people will stop Brexit?
You’re delusional. Only 8% of Peterborough electorate turned out to vote for pro-remain parties in the recent by-election.
The vast majority of the population either want to leave or just don’t care, and the majority of them don’t care.

My point Hefner, probably badly expressed, is why call him ‘Trumpy’ what is it that President Trump has achieved that you believe Boris Johnson will replicate. If you could also add in what way that would then affect the UK public?

I think he and Raab are the most committed to it, but his timetable is better than Raab’s. I also think Boris has an enormous amount invested in delivering national independence: not just for the country and his party, but for his own reputation. Mrs May didn’t have any of that. She didn’t even appear to understand that that was what she was supposed to be doing.

A no trade deal exit is mandated by the stance of the EU! Therefore, the sooner we leave, the quicker we can formulate an FTA and satisfy the frit remainers in the HoC. Like May’s WA, any ‘agreement’ prior to our exiting is a naked attempt to nullify Brexit.

A requirement to do a free trade deal with the EU, is that we sign the withdrawal agreement. You have been told by the EU that you do not get a trade deal without it. Yet you appear to be struggling to understand.

In any case, I don’t know why you want a trade deal with the EU anyway. With the single market and customs union we have the best trade arrangements in the world – bar none. And you don’t like them for some spurious reasons which you probably still can’t explain.

And yet you think replacing the best trading arrangements in the world with significantly worse trading arrangements will make you happy. Bless.

Japan has only recently signed a trade deal with the EU andy.
Noticed any shortages of Japanese goods in UK or EU countries in the last 40 years?
Japan pays no annual fees to the EU
Japan doesn’t allow the EU to impose laws on them.
Japan can make trade deals with other nations without EU permission.
Japan doesn’t have open borders with the EU.
Let’s be like Japan.
Bless

My point is that nations trade successfully without any formal trade deal with the EU.
Whereas Andy claims that catastrophe will befall us if we leave and do not have a trade deal.
I think that a trade deal with the EU should be simpler for us to achieve than nations that have never been members.

No, it’s not the same. We have been fully-aligned with the miasma of EU regulations for decades and so, therefore a Free Trade Agreement should easily be reached. However, the EU wants its pound of flesh, and to keep its boot on our throat.

Now back onto your “frictionless” trade lark again andy.
Which has been shown to be a fantasy made up by remainers.
Having traded for decades both importing and exporting my experience is that no trade anywhere in the world is frictionless and there is little difference in bureaucracy paperwork regulations and potential delays in trading with EU nations and other nations outside the EU.
PS
Did you see the recent comments by Barnier saying a technology solution can be found for the Irish border?
Neither government want a hard border so none will ever be built.

There is no such thing as a Free trade deal. Trading with the EU actual imposes un-needed cost on the bulk of UK Industry that have no interest in the EU. So, it is more costly than the arrangements the rest of the World gets with the EU

The Withdrawal Treaty seeks to break up the UK, it inhibits the UK in playing a part in the rest of the World. It imposes an un-costed price on all future UK Parliaments. Its aim is to prevent trade with the rest of the World. It reinforces the isolationist tendencies of the whole EU. As the EU negotiators said it make the UK an EU colony – that’s their words!
There is nothing in the Withdrawal Treaty to suggest trade, other than maybe and perhaps if we agree to EU one sided terms talks may be considered.

It is the worst trading arrangement in the World as it enforces top down doctrine by unelected Overlords whom have no interest in anything other staying in control and their own egos.

I am stating the reality of the situation. For some reason you fail to see it. The WA will not be passed so WTO it is then! The single market has been very good for Germany (and those nations hanging on to their coat tails) but not for the UK. Repetitive massive trade deficits with the EU testify to that. Oddly enough, we seem to be in overall surplus, WTO trading with non-EU nations. Would you care to explain that?

Andy….it doesn’t have to be FREE trade deal. If tariffs are imposed the EU significant trade balance with us will cost them dear. Unless they decide, or the customers over here decide, we won’t buy anymore! Having left we can make trade deals everywhere else to help us be free of the EU protectionist policies.

Andy, you’re right that the EU are currently stating the UK must sign the WA before they are prepared to consider an FTA. It will be interesting to see whether they – the new Commission and Parliament – will stick to this line when the UK leaves without signing the WA.

My belief is that reality will force a different approach. We’ll – hopefully – see!

Will Boris pony-up the £39 billion to pass go and proceed towards some sort of trade relationship with the EU? According to number crunchers in Brussels last weekend, that will be a show stopper. Considered to be equivalent to a sovereign debt default in IMF terms.

Have a read of http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-19-2951_en.htm .
There are 19 short term parachute plans on offer from the EU, hopefully some minister is dealing with these? It maybe time to pull the n0-deal ripcord, the brexit virus is smothering the UK economy.

BTW. If you see such as “UK has signed a free trade agreement (FTA) in principle with South Korea”, the “in principal” bit means it is dependent on the final agreement between the UK and the EU. None of these countries are going to risk their relationship with the much bigger EU trade bloc.

Acorn, You and your ilk demand that the UK continues to be a vassal of the EU. I prefer independence. But if we must not, or cannot be independent (according to you), then we would be much better off, and more democratic, being part of the USA than part of the EU.

Remember that imports are a pure benefit to UK citizens, we get to enjoy stuff we don’t make ourselves. Better still, all the UK has to do is pay the foreigners that export to the UK, with bits of paper called Pounds Sterling; the UK Treasury has a bottomless pit of Pounds Sterling, it is the creator and issuer of them.

If a country with a large economy, wants its sovereign fiat currency to become the world’s “reserve currency”, all it has to do is run massive trade deficits for decades. Hence, the planet is carpeted with US Dollars. Trump is turbo charging that process with a $1,000 billion budget deficit for this fiscal year alone.

Will Boris follow suit? Likely, he will be forced to do so post a no-deal brexit; but, it will not be a problem for the Treasury and, he should not be frightened of expanding the budget deficit considerably. He will have to push all sectors of the economy to the point of inflation and keep it there.

Remember also that there are three ways to stop or slow down Pounds Sterling circulating within the UK economy. Taxes, Imports and Savings. Trump has injected large quantities of Dollars into the US economy with his tax cuts and spending policy.

There has been a boost to the US economy but there are signs that the velocity of circulation of those Dollars is slowing; because, US citizens are saving Trumps Dollars and not spending them. They are unsure of the future.

Acorn, The Euro is in the same boat as the Dollar. But with a difference – the USA has already had its bank bust, but the EZ has yet to clear out its toxic banks.

Moreover it is not “the UK” that spends the money on imports, it is the customers. And that money represents (a fiat currency is a model of the economy) wealth which leaves these shores. It is easy to see why: GBP spent on a BMW does not benefit the UK economy, but GBP spent on a Land-Rover built here does.

I’m not that bothered as the economic impact on the UK would be marginal, and possibly negative, like the economic impact of EU membership.

There are numerous respectable sources contradicting the doom and gloom which David Cameron allowed and encouraged George Osborne to push out before the EU referendum and which Theresa May allowed and encouraged Philip Hammond to push out since the referendum, but here is just one of them which appeared two years ago:

“A new study simulates the effects of eight different Brexit scenarios on the German and EU economy.”

Superficially this looked like bad news for the UK, and indeed it was being presented as such by the German government, but the actual numbers did not support the apocalyptic forecasts from the UK Treasury:

“In the most positive scenario with a comprehensive free trade deal between the EU and the U.K., the study predicts a long-term output loss from a pre-Brexit trajectory of 0.1 percent for the EU and 0.6 percent for the U.K.

In the scenario where the U.K. and the EU fail to strike a trade deal and fall back on World Trade Organization rules, the study predicts the U.K. economy would lose 1.7 percent of economic output over the long-term, while German and EU GDP would be 0.2 percent and 0.3 percent below their previous pre-Brexit trajectories, respectively.”

Given that the long term trend rate of natural growth of the UK economy is about 2.5% a year even a one-off loss of 1.7% of GDP through falling back on WTO terms would not be a major impact, while cutting that loss to 0.6% by a special trade deal would also not make much odds.

Your mistake is to swallow eurofederalist propaganda depicting the whole of the UK economy as heavily dependent on trade with the EU when that is simply not the case; it is only 12% of UK GDP that is exported to the rest of the EU by maybe 6% of UK companies, so the overall impact of any change in the circumstances of that trade is much diluted.

Signing the WA only allowed us to discuss a trade deal at a cost of £39 billion. No guarantees that we would have a trade deal without conditions dictated by the EU. The sooner the EU get it in their heads that the WA is dead and the £39billion is a dream the better.

The existing trade arrangements with the EU are highly restrictive. They for instance control who we trade with around the World in a grossly protectionist manner. By leaving we trade with whom we wish.

There is no price on sovereignty as the recent D-Day commemoration should have reminded you.

Hefner, Not so. Quite clearly Nazi Germany did not accept French nationalism – or Belgian, Danish, Dutch, etc, nationalism. Being a nationalist requires respect for other nations by definition. It is conquerors who disregard others’ nations, not nationalists.

What I meant was:- Boris is the only hope left. Let us hope that he actually delivers in October (despite all the Libdims in the Conservative Party fighting against the interests of the country, our negotiation position and the interests of the Party).

He must not cave in this time as he did over May’s putrid W/A in the final vote.

Assuming BJ secures the leadership and becomes PM, he’ll be faced with two gargantuan tasks. One, satisfy the wishes of democracy as expressed following the EU referendum in 2016 and two, destroy Marxist Labour and its client state including the BBC.

If he can achieve both of the above he will have our undying gratitude

Dominic, I think you are right about the tasks ahead. But Boris becoming PM is not a done deal. And I’m not about to trust another Tory PM until I see proof of his abilities and commitment to leaving the *%?**!! EU. And yes cultural marxism is a pestilence, and it is promoted by the odious BBC, but exit must come first.

I opine it is a contract of “utmost good faith”, without which the appointment is voidable. It fails if there is material non-disclosure or misrepresentation. Boris must make good on his promise for a clean Brexit by 31 Oct.

Hammond has written a letter claiming that the national debt has been falling, just as May did in her ‘the country that I love’ non-exit speech. At least Hammond realised that her latest wheeze to wreck industry and freeze poor people is going to be unaffordable. Has Spreadsheet Phil got his sums wrong or has tax gone up so much that the debt is actually falling?

Hammond is at least right in warning of the huge (and entirely pointless) cost of the net zero greenhouse gas emissions promise by 2050. About the first sensible thing he has done. He puts it at £1 trillion but it would be higher still. It will/cannot happen needless to say. Pure loony, virtue signalling by daft politicians with zero understanding of science, economics, reason or logic.

Even Boris is now foolishly genuflecting to the climate alarmist religion. Hopefully he is just faking it.

Read the article in the DT yesterday. Mischief and misinformation of Hammonds climate change figures.

‘The Treasury should be in the dock. The leaked spoiler is a clutter of absurdity errors and category errors. Conflates spending with investment, confuses costs that have a payback and those that don’t. Assumes there will be no reduction in costs of wind, solar, renewables, hydrogen production etc over the next 30 years etc’

It oozes mischief and reflects the institutional arrogance with the ethos that the rest of the Cabinet cannot be trusted and they are the only custodians of economic rigour but they are not rigorous at all ………….

Unlike the others front runners, Gove is a weather vain (spelling intended), not a signpost, he flip-flop what ever way he thinks makes him look good – yes we all know that Boris had a personal argument between supporting Remain or Leave but having made his decision he (appears) resolute in that decision.

I don’t agree with Hunt but I do believe he is sincere in his political beliefs, I might not like were he wants us all to travel but at least we’ll know the road and end destination! I honestly can not say that about Gove.

Rory Stewart will probably be eliminated in the next round so he can concentrate full time on setting up his own parliament across the road from the HoC to block no deal. I am surprised he is so revered by the non-Conservative commentators, but (as with Boris and Cameron) Old Etonians are very personable and plausible.

He also communicates well and in the interviews I’ve heard/seen, he appears to give direct & relevant answers. It’s just a shame about his policies. I suspect he’s not going to go away and will be a force in the future.

The media has cut one bit in his interview about setting up a parallel Parliament in a Church , with its permission one supposes.
It shows much of his teeth, jaw and gums not and does look pretty at all.Many would perhaps find him very frightening indeed.

There is plenty of sanctimony about BJ’s private life in the media.
Very often this is written by politicians.
Maybe they should consider the general public don’t have such a high opinion of them either, and a little humility would be welcome.

I don’t think many of the public care overmuch about the indiscretions of politicians, especially childhood or teenage/youthful indiscretions. They care about their jobs, their families, their homes. Their eyes most certainly do not glaze over when politicians fail to deliver promises are made, which is why we are going to see a massive change of representatives in Parliament following the next GE.

Michael Gove is a gadfly, not to be trusted. His convictions change with the weather to further his own career.

The WA is only a reality in the eyes of the EU. Even our disfunctional parliament has voted it down three times. May was obviously enamoured of it. To the best of my knowledge she did not sign up to it except in her mind. The EU need to be told that their draft WA is dead, a good try to subjugate the UK, but failed and consigned to fhe dust of history. Listening to some members of the EU yesterday they appeared seriously deluded.

Personally hope Boris makes it to PM. Equally hope he gainfully employs Esther McVey in his Cabinet. Maybe they will articulate exactly what the UK wants in terms of it’s future relationship with the EU.

I came to respect Mr Gove during the referendum campaign and believed him to be sincere when he said he would not stand for the leadership.
However, I thought his behaviour towards Mr Johnson was unspeakably awful. To stab his “friend” in the back in that way was the worst kind of betrayal and since then I have been disinclined to believe anything he says. I now believe he is one of those politicians who, in answer to the question “What do you believe about (insert subject of your choice)?” replies “Well, what would you like me to believe.”.

Boris has been telling everyone who is not in the ERG that he has no intention of leaving with no deal, and will either do a deal with Corbyn or go for a 2nd referendum. He is playing the ERG for fools – successfully

I think with Johnson it’s a case of hope rather than expectation. I sincerely hope that the more capable MPs have a contingency plan in place if/when the Conservatives fail to deliver Brexit. There is some talent there that the Brexit party could put to good use.

Voting for Johnson is of course not the same as endorsing him. This should be remembered by all those pessimistic at the prospect of Johnson as PM and therefore disappointed by our host’s vote. Sir John has made his loyalty to his party clear, and also his responsibility to his constituents. If Johnson were to deliver a proper Brexit then he’ll have served his purpose.

Personally, I think strong leadership would make clear that the only way to both secure a firm mandate for, and, crucially, implement, a proper Brexit is through a GE. It remains to be seen whether Johnson makes this call, and can then both win the GE AND deliver a proper Brexit. I trust he realises that only by bringing Farage along with him will he stand a chance.

I don’t envy your task; a choice of the lease worst shows the sorry state of the Conservative Party.

On the way forward. The Candidates left should avoid so called TV debates as these will be held by Left Leaning Remain organisations whose purpose is to undermine and belittle the Conservative Party just for ratings and secure a Corbyn government.

Hopefully the 2 top contenders will still be put forward to the membership. A coronation would be unhelpful – remember May. The new leader having the party at large declared behind him will have more authority. It will also help contain Letwin, Grieve and your neighbor in Bracknell among others who think lying to the people for their own egos sake is fun .

A lot is needed to rebuild trust and confidence. Primarily the bulk of Parliament has lied to the electorate, they haven’t honored their Referendum Pledges, they haven’t complied with the Law they passed to just leave the EU.

The next PM has two tasks. Deliver Brexit. Defeat Corbyn. Johnson seems best placed to do both.

He will need good advice to achieve both. As Mayor of London he claims to have delivered solid results over two terms in office. This is a reasonable claim. On the evidence of this executive experience he deserves the opportunity to be the next PM. I cannot say that about any other candidate.

I have been in France for a week and missed the BBC EU propaganda. Turning the lunchtime Andrew Neil show on, various Tory MPs talked about their preferences for leader and they all seem to think that the agreement needs to be altered slightly, with a backstop that can be eventually ignored. They give the impression that they have not ever read the various criticisms of the WA in the websites or in speeches and that they do not realise that it was written by the EU and turns us into a colony. Or perhaps that is what they secretly wish for and they think the electorate is stupid enough to fall for their plan. They will be eliminated at the next election, by which time the true nature of the WA will be obvious. The PM of that great state Luxembourg is backing Mrs Merkel to take over from their previous PM. Apparently she is the best globalist for the position.

In normal times, a Prime Minister includes personal and political opponents in the interests of party unity. Or, they’d rather have them inside the tent than out. Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.

In the current context it would be a mistake to invite ideological remainers into cabinet. The next Prime Minister needs to be more collegiate with his (we now know it will be a man) colleagues in cabinet and work together on securing the advantages of Brexit: not fighting against cabinet members who are opposed to the major plank of his administration.

The Remainer elements of the Conservative Party will need to be addressed. As will the Remainer elements on the opposition benches. But the next Prime Minister will need a fully supportive cabinet. A cabinet that has every intention of leaving the EU by 31st October 2019 at the latest, and with no Withdrawal Agreement or Free Trade Agreement if necessary.

He probably is the least bad but a real worry is his support for Teresa May’s trillion pound (at least!) ‘zero carbon’ plan proposed by a committee whose chairman and other members are, scandalously, receiving funds from renewables and electric car interests (isn’t it long overdue for the Climate Change Committee to be scrapped?)

This plan will bankrupt us as surely as Jeremy Corbyn, albeit taking a little longer.

A further concern is who will be Chancellor. You, sir, are by a long way the most fiscally astute person in Parliament and the ideal for the job but I fear we will end up with a lightweight like the ever self-promoting Liz Truss who was so pitifully out of her depth at Environment.

IW
Boris will be pushed into further environmental concessions by his new partner , father , brother and sister .

I find the conflation of legitimate concerns over habitat ,plastics, wild life with the unproven link that CO2 causes catastrophic warming ,the most worrying aspect of this movement .

The aim of the green movement is to subject us to green laws decided on by the EU , IPCC/UN , for which we will pay taxes through subsidies for renewables .
It is a one way ticket as we sceptics are not allowed to have a sensible discussion with the believers as ‘ the science is settled ‘.
Dangerous times ahead !

There were other candidates mirroring what Mr Johnson (likely to lose his seat at the next election especially if he is Prime Minister) is saying.

Therefore the driver for voting for his version seems to be his electability. He got 114 votes not because his vision is the best but because he is most likely to win an election and keep MPs’ jobs. Typical MP short term view.

I do not trust Boris Johnson and would have preferred Dominic Raab. However at least we are likely to have a new Prime Minister who has publicly committed to us leaving the EU on October 31st with or without any withdrawal agreement in the terms of Article 50. And who is moreover the most likely to intimidate those MPs, including renegade Tory MPs, who are thinking about precipitating an early general election as a possible means to prevent Brexit. Which in truth is what these hypocritical anti-democrats have always been about ever since they lost the referendum; it is nothing to do with deal or no deal, it is about no Brexit, as the so-called “Liberal Democrats” have now openly admitted.

I would prefer not to support Boris if there was an alternative candidate committed to leaving in October who would also win us the next election.

But Boris is a big risk. He was a disaster at the Foreign Office and will have to behave completely differently in No 10 if he is to be a successful PM. First he has to get past the debates which could demonstrate his alleged inability to master a brief.

I am very disappointed to see Andrea and Esther eliminated so early. Stewart and Hancock should have been first out. From the Shires, Andrea looked to be an excellent leader of the house and I greatly admired her fearlessly challenging Bercow when other, mainly male, MPs are clearly scared of him.

Esther is the kind of feisty politician with crystal clear objectives and I like that a lot.
I guess after May, members would play safe and were unlikely to back another woman.

Thanks for letting us know whom you voted for. It is clear you are having to
opt for one of the cards being held out to you. We hope you can outwit the
magician, but I think Mr. Corbyn’s constitutional role as Official Bogeyman
makes it impossible to do so. It seems the polls are having the effect of kettling
your Party. Mr. Johnson is the controlled exit point. It should be Mr. Farage.

Ignore the calls for television debates between the contenders for the Tory crown. It’s a little more than a clumsy Remain scam (BBC Remain, Ch4 Remain and the like) to undermine what is a purely internal party matter and to such an event to weaken the position of Johnson

Quite right. What the reptiles call “scrutiny” and “answering questions” is in fact character assassination by prompt sheet. The interviewer, say Mishal Hussein or Emily Maitlis, works her way down a pre-prepared hit list of smears and gives no time to reply. What would be the point of submitting to that when there is real scrutiny and debate needed in the actual constituency in the Palace of Westminster?

This process is wrong when effectively voting for a PM. Remoaners have been saying that parliament is sovereign and MPs are there to express/interpret the will of the people so why are CP members involved, who total about .003% of the electorate. Out of goverment is different, it may never be elected.

I hope very much that boris will not do a mrs May and hide from the media and from debate. It is essential the candidates, at least in the final round, have rigorous public exposure and are tested in the hostile, left-leaning and remain supporting media, as they will be come an election. The 17 election was a narrow miss. If it had gone on another week Corbyn would have won. We only found out quite how hopeless mrs May was in that campaign, because she never got exposed in the leadership contest.

My theory about Johnson goes like this :
He knows therefore the choice is No Deal , Bad deal or Remain notwithstanding the nonsense he is currently spouting.He also knows that No Deal will be blocked and that the threat to place the country under the dictatorship of a minority administration is an empty one. So he has no way to win
But he has nothing to lose either freeing him to adopt a high risk strategy.

He will posture a bit then threaten to call an election ith the UK still in. He will dare Farrage to split the Brexit vote and cancel Brexit and he will dare the ERG to go to the Polls facing Farrage having not done the deed.
One of the two will back down and either he will force through some version of the bad deal or take his chances with the electorate where , if Farrage backs out , he may get an increased majority and once again force through the May Deal.

The Brexit Party only needs to stand in leave voting constituencies where remain MPs are standing. This will not split the leave vote. If they win, it puts him in the position of kingmaker and hopefully changes the arithmetic within parliament. TBP need to take votes from both the main parties and therefore come up with policies that appeal to the left and the right. I’m sure Nigel Farage is clever enough to see this.

As I’ve said before…there are 90 Tory MPs that had <5% majority at the last GE, plus another 70 who had between 5 and 10% majority. They should be seriously worried, BREXIT is capable of destroying their comfortable status.

I think the acid test question to any aspiring leadership contender should be “Will you give your key cabinet positions to Brexiteers?”
If they have not learned that the likes of Mr “Spanner-in-the-works” Hammond are a large part of the Conservative Party’s problem, then a line should be drawn straight through their name.

Steve, so you think the 130,000 members would prefer anybody but Boris? I doubt they are ready to play Russian roulette with 5 of 6 chambers loaded. But if so they deserve 5 years in the distressing wilderness watching the country wrecking mob play havoc with their values.

It’s quite interesting to see the attack lines surrounding Boris, I can’t believe the left wing commentariat and Remain supporters are revealing their hand so early, surely it is in their interest if they believe what they write about Boris Johnson MP, to have the Conservatives elect him as in their opinion Boris is fatally flawed and easily exposed.

In my opinion, Boris needs to reassure people that if he got the top job his days in the punditocracy whilst he holds that position are out of bounds whilst retaining his rights to free speech in his own style.

Influential political commentators and comedians are making jokes all the time and writing or saying things which are deliberately provocative; such and such is like…. as a comic comparison is used by the most amusing, people on both ends of the political spectrum choose to take offence depending on who is making the comment and what it is about.

I’d like to see Boris reach out to Sajid Javid as his deputy but he’s probably promised that to an early backer. PMQs would certainly heat up in the future.

He said a day or two ago he would not serve under any circumstances. Mr Grieve also said a little time ago that he would leave Parliament or the Tory Party or both if Boris became PM but has not repeated it lately as far as I am aware. What news of his ongoing deselection?We should start cloud funding for it and try not to laugh with glee. He will not be missed. We have had enough of bifurcated speeches, half -English and the other half floating somewhere between professionally constructed vague Law and dreams of yesteryear when we had wooden ploughs and looked forward to the end of gathering it all in at Harvest Time when Master would spoil us by having a feast with free alcohol and tarts and other fruity stuff. We are on a diet! Enough of him!

Which he might do if he gets embroiled in these debates. I hope that he will refuse on the grounds that:

1. The format of debates is not one that lends itself to statesmanlike / Prime Ministerial behaviour. More a schoolboy squabble.

2. The history of the channels hosting these debates is now seen as somewhat biased, as reflected in their viewing figures.

3. When the Party decides to have a debate, if they wish for it to be televised then the Party should ask a TV station of their choice to host it. It is not for TV stations to be telling the Party / candidates that they must do their bidding, Tail wagging dog.

4. The ‘electorate’ for this exercise is not the public at large, but the Conservative party.

5. Much of what a PM must do in the Brexit sphere is not something that should be discussed openly now. There will be an element of the Machiavellian about it and disclosing one’s strategy to one’s opponents at this stage would be stupid / suicidal.
At best, you will get a rather silly stance of ‘I’m sure those nice folks at the EU will do a deal’.

I hope Boris will stand aside and take a statesmanlike stance on this. He only needs to make the final two to be almost sure of becoming PM so he should keep it all within the party.

Boris will be defined by the cabinet he chooses – Esther McVey was passionate about this at Bruges Group meeting – only really committed Brexiteers should be considered. Gove is a total Remainer, Hammond needs to go immediately – we need someone in the Treasury like Sir John. Rory Stewart trying to engineer himself a job. Only by the cabinet and the changes he has to make to the civil service will we be able to make a judgement on Boris

“Be it enacted by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:— ”

I would have thought the Queen could quite reasonably ask why she was previously given “advice and consent” that the notice should go in without any reservation or safeguarding provision aimed at ensuring that the UK would not leave the EU without any withdrawal agreement, but now some of those selfsame MPs are belatedly trying every trick they can devise to try to stop that happening.

No real indication for the public why the Leader of The Commons, Mrs Leadsom did so poorly nor why Boris is doing so very well with MPs when they could have voted for him instead of Mrs Leadsom and Mrs May in the previous Tory Party PM Election.
It just presents MPs as a Class who cannot or should not lord it over anyone in so much as they could offer but a vastly overpriced penny for their thoughts. And even the most basic costs more than a penny nowadays. If you can find one.

Out of the field I agree with the logic of your choice, if Boris keeps to his word with WTO brexit and not handing over vast sums of money we will achieve brexit.

He also has voiced the risk of not keeping his word, so appears good there. Mr Mogg is a good ally of his and I hope he uses your experience for the time after brexit, we will have to see. May’s duplicity makes predicting any leaders actions hard, but Boris has talked sensibly consistently on the EU.

I’m not so sure we will not get a GE shortly after brexit, Rory and others like him will be impossible to keep in the party if he keeps to his word. With the worst remainers who wish to bring down government deselected and a WTO brexit delivered I find it hard to see success rfor the brexit party in a GE, although they should stand in labour areas. Here a pact would make sense where conservatives stood aside in key areas, although it is hard to see it happening.

The last volley from Mrs May in her sinking ship a day or two ago was her feverishly advocation of a Green Agenda which would if enacted as much as 15% send our economy down fast as a kestel close-winged diving in attack on an unaware pigeon beneath. She looked like, in truth, a silly spiteful teenager, but it must be said our media are very creative with their filming and polarised one-sided jokes. So maybe she was seriously and with all her mature wisdom advocating the death of our Country as her Legacy.

In the end Boris will sell out to the EU..he will fold..because he has only one thing in mind and that is to get into no.10. Yesterday we saw Jeffrey Donaldson DUP going over to Dublin looking for support from the Irish government to change the Backstop, but alas fat chance of that, the EU is not going to reopen any of this for they know if they did the whole thing would unravel..and the problem for the DUP now is that they don’t trust Boris, not at all, and some can even see the Irish border redrawn down the Irish Sea. Certainly if we leave without a deal then talks about the future will have to happen post 31st Oct and in this case there can be no certainty as to how anything will go because as an third party to them we will be in a much weakened position- so this is probably why there is so much nervousness about

What’s the matter with jeremy Hunt rowing in behind the americans saying there’s no doubt that Iran is responsible for the attack on the tankers. Have we learned nothing since we accepted tjat Iraq had WMD because the Us said so..looks more likely to me that the americans and Israelis were responsible for this..we should wait until proper investigation by international surveyors is carried out before mouthing off

One aspect of the Conservative Party’s leadership election method that I have not seen mentioned anywhere else is that it leads to horsetrading of roles.

If people have to do deals with MPs to get their vote, which generally means offering them a ministerial role, then we have a system that seems to be the opposite of meritocracy. Basically, cronyism.

Please lobby for the ’22 to change these rules. If, as is reported, Priti Patel takes over CCHQ and reforms what the members and associations can do then perhaps we might see an improvement there, but as long as the MPs select who the membership gets to vote for, we will see this flawed process leading to flawed governments.

And the other major flaw in this format of leadership process is that the candidates are expected to behave like performing seals for the media and trot out their plans in public.

Meanwhile the EU sit quietly watching and drawing up their own plans and counter-measures behind closed doors. They can put a spanner in the works of the candidates they don’t want to see by claiming that their plans won’t work.

This is absolutely the worst way to select a leader. Please lobby the 1922 to change this.

It doesn’t have to be like this. There is no need to grovel to the media who want to control everything, including the leadership contest. This should be held internally, with all scrutiny and debate going on away from the media. The constituency is not the viewing public but the parliamentary party. Anyway we don’t get scrutiny or debate on the air, just attempts at humiliation. The sight of those five cabinet ministers submitting themselves to a Channel 4 presenter as if they were nobodies on some quiz show was appalling. And very unwise to engage in scraps between themselves. Just when we were hoping Cabinet government would be restored too.

The prying into Boris Johnson’s children’s lives appals me today in the Express. There is no equivalent write up for the children of all the other contenders and where they go to school and what they write for their school magazine, surely there are rules about the privacy of children. It’s no wonder that a big % of world leaders are childless.

About John Redwood

John Redwood won a free place at Kent College, Canterbury, He graduated from Magdalen College Oxford, has a DPhil and is a fellow of All Souls College. A businessman by background, he has been a director of NM Rothschild merchant bank and chairman of a quoted industrial PLC.